Nyaya Ratnamala of Parthasarathi Misra 2.3.p13

2.3.p13

iti vadan pramāṇatvāpramāṇatvanirupaṇameva hi svataḥ paratoveticinsataitispaṣṭamevāhā|yattu itivārttikaṃtatpramāṇamasmītyanenākāreṇāgrahaṇāt tathā ca pramāṇamitāmityevaṃ pratyakṣādi na gṛhyataityāha| nanu yadi prāmāṇyaṃ jñānotpattisamaraye'vagamyate yadutpattau pramāṇatayā na cakāsti tadapramāṇamityutpattāveva pariśeṣānniścetuṃ śakyam vināpi kāraṇadoṣabādhakapratyayābhyām ityaprāmāṇyamapi svata evāpadyeta| maivaṃ vocaḥ na hi svaśabdo'yaṃ prāmāṇyaparatayā prayuktaḥ prāmāṇyādeva prāmāṇyaṃ bhātīti nāpi pramāṇatayā yadi hi tathā syāttato'pramāṇeṣu prāmāṇyanabhavabhāsāt pariśeṣasiddhamaprāmāṇyaṃ syāt| vijñānaparastu svaśabdaḥ vijñānādeva prāmāṇyaṃ bhātīti| tataścāpramāṇajñānādapi prāmāṇyamevātmano'sadapi bodhyataiti nāprāmāṇyasya pariśeṣasiddhiḥ aprāmāṇyantu pratītaprāmāṇyapavādarūpeṇa paścādbodhyaiti yathā''ha|

Saying this, he clearly states that the investigation itself into validity and invalidity considers whether they are intrinsic or extrinsic. As for the verse, 'That [knowledge] is not grasped in the form "I am valid", and thus perception and the rest are not grasped as "knowing a valid object"'—now, if validity were known at the time of the cognition's arising, whatever does not appear as valid upon arising could be determined to be invalid right at arising by elimination, even without a defect in the cause or a subverting cognition, so that invalidity too would become intrinsic! Do not say this; for the word 'self' (sva) here is not used in the sense of validity, as if validity shines from validity itself, nor as a means of valid cognition. For if it were so, then because validity does not appear in invalid [cognitions], invalidity would be established by elimination. Rather, the word 'self' refers to the cognition, meaning: validity shines from the cognition itself. And therefore, even from an invalid cognition, validity of itself—even though non-existent—is understood, so invalidity is not established by elimination; rather, invalidity is understood later in the form of an annulment of the apprehended validity, just as he said: